LVH NCAA TOURNAMENT ODDS

Florida 4-1
Michigan State 9-2
Arizona 6-1
Kansas 8-1
Louisville 15-1
Wichita State 15-1
Virginia 15-1
Duke 15-1
Syracuse 15-1
Wisconsin 20-1
Michigan 25-1
Villanova 25-1
Creighton 25-1
Iowa State 35-1
UCLA 35-1
Kentucky 40-1
North Carolina 50-1
Ohio State 60-1
Oklahoma State 60-1
San Diego State 75-1
VCU 75-1
St. Louis 100-1
Baylor 100-1
Cincinnati 100-1
Oklahoma 100-1
Connecticut 100-1
Oregon 100-1
New Mexico 100-1
Texas 100-1
Gonzaga 100-1
Memphis 100-1
Pittsburgh 100-1
Iowa 100-1
Tennessee 100-1
Massachusetts 200-1
Stanford 200-1
Providence 200-1
Kansas State 300-1
St. Joseph's 300-1
Arizona State 300-1
Xavier 500-1
Colorado 500-1
George Washington 500-1
BYU 500-1
Nebraska 500-1
Dayton 500-1
North Carolina State 1000-1
Harvard 1000-1
North Dakota State 1000-1

These odds show the big differences among the 4-seeds, don't they?

(03-17-2014 09:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  These odds show the big differences among the 4-seeds, don't they?

There is a "Certain" school that is a 4 Seed that is 5th with the Vegas Odds and according to Nate Silver Projection is the favorite to Repeat as National Champion.

Like I said in another thread....Louisville didn't so much get "screwed" it was everyone else in the Midwest Region that has to deal with a group of players that have won more Big Games in College Basketball the past two years then any school in the Country.

All we have to do is beat the schools that we beat last year on our road to the Title...once again beat Wichita, Duke and Michigan...

And Last year We beat Kentucky during the regular season. Could have a chance for redemption of this seasons loss.

(03-17-2014 10:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  And Last year We beat Kentucky during the regular season. Could have a chance for redemption of this seasons loss.

Thank you Committee...Love it...God Help the rest of the Tournament...they gave The Champs and it's Fan Base another Chip...29-5....same record as last year when UofL was the #1 Overall Seed...now even more fuel to our Fire...

The odds are generally too tilted in favor of the sports book, though this might be an interesting wager: Let's say you bet $100 each on the five 15-1 teams to win the tournament. You bet $500, if one of those teams wins, you get $1500. If you win you're getting paid at 3-1. According to Nate Silver's projected odds, there is a 32% chance that one of those five teams will win the tournament. If Silver's projections are correct, then that is almost a fair bet for the bettor.

Just betting Louisville, Virginia, and Duke would be even better according to Silver -- a win would pay you 5-1 and you would have a 26% chance of winning. I doubt that any combination of 3 teams actually has a 26% chance of one of them winning, though. There are too many variables and too many quirky things happen, so you're not getting good value on the Vegas odds.

(03-17-2014 02:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The odds are generally too tilted in favor of the sports book, though this might be an interesting wager: Let's say you bet $100 each on the five 15-1 teams to win the tournament. You bet $500, if one of those teams wins, you get $1500. If you win you're getting paid at 3-1. According to Nate Silver's projected odds, there is a 32% chance that one of those five teams will win the tournament. If Silver's projections are correct, then that is almost a fair bet for the bettor.

Just betting Louisville, Virginia, and Duke would be even better according to Silver -- a win would pay you 5-1 and you would have a 26% chance of winning. I doubt that any combination of 3 teams actually has a 26% chance of one of them winning, though. There are too many variables and too many quirky things happen, so you're not getting good value on the Vegas odds.

Not really. Vegas sets the odds to be neutral. The goal is to get equal numbers betting on each side and pay out a net of zero. They only appear to favor the sports book because the vig is factored into the odds and that's how they actually make their money. If you took the vig out and listed it separately, the odds would add up to 1. They don't do that because people are less likely to put down money if there's an added explicit fee so it's better for them to hide it inside the bet.

The other thing a lot of people don't realize is that odds aren't straight up probabilities of likely outcomes. They're based on expected betting patterns. People don't always bet using objective factors and there are lots of intangibles that go into setting odds. Florida having the best odds and Louisville having the fifth best doesn't necessarily mean Florida is the most likely to win or Louisville is the fifth most likely; it's thats where they expect the money to go.

I do like your idea. Nate Silver's numbers are based on what he calculates to be actual probabilities. If you could find a set of scenarios where your actual odds are better than the Vegas odds, then it could be worth placing some bets.

(03-17-2014 03:12 PM)prp Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The odds are generally too tilted in favor of the sports book, though this might be an interesting wager: Let's say you bet $100 each on the five 15-1 teams to win the tournament. You bet $500, if one of those teams wins, you get $1500. If you win you're getting paid at 3-1. According to Nate Silver's projected odds, there is a 32% chance that one of those five teams will win the tournament. If Silver's projections are correct, then that is almost a fair bet for the bettor.

Just betting Louisville, Virginia, and Duke would be even better according to Silver -- a win would pay you 5-1 and you would have a 26% chance of winning. I doubt that any combination of 3 teams actually has a 26% chance of one of them winning, though. There are too many variables and too many quirky things happen, so you're not getting good value on the Vegas odds.

Not really. Vegas sets the odds to be neutral. The goal is to get equal numbers betting on each side and pay out a net of zero. They only appear to favor the sports book because the vig is factored into the odds and that's how they actually make their money. If you took the vig out and listed it separately, the odds would add up to 1. They don't do that because people are less likely to put down money if there's an added explicit fee so it's better for them to hide it inside the bet.

The other thing a lot of people don't realize is that odds aren't straight up probabilities of likely outcomes. They're based on expected betting patterns. People don't always bet using objective factors and there are lots of intangibles that go into setting odds. Florida having the best odds and Louisville having the fifth best doesn't necessarily mean Florida is the most likely to win or Louisville is the fifth most likely; it's thats where they expect the money to go.

I do like your idea. Nate Silver's numbers are based on what he calculates to be actual probabilities. If you could find a set of scenarios where your actual odds are better than the Vegas odds, then it could be worth placing some bets.

The fact that the odds are set to account for where bets are going to go is one reason bets are often a bad deal, particularly if you bet on "name" teams. Michigan State and Kansas are examples on that list of teams whose odds are so low that betting on them is a bad "investment".

Using Silver's calculations would be an interesting way to go, though I doubt that any team in the field has greater than a 10% chance of winning the tournament. Pick the consensus "best team" at the start of the last 20 tournaments, and that team wins the whole thing less than 10% of the time.

(03-17-2014 03:12 PM)prp Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The odds are generally too tilted in favor of the sports book, though this might be an interesting wager: Let's say you bet $100 each on the five 15-1 teams to win the tournament. You bet $500, if one of those teams wins, you get $1500. If you win you're getting paid at 3-1. According to Nate Silver's projected odds, there is a 32% chance that one of those five teams will win the tournament. If Silver's projections are correct, then that is almost a fair bet for the bettor.

Just betting Louisville, Virginia, and Duke would be even better according to Silver -- a win would pay you 5-1 and you would have a 26% chance of winning. I doubt that any combination of 3 teams actually has a 26% chance of one of them winning, though. There are too many variables and too many quirky things happen, so you're not getting good value on the Vegas odds.

Not really. Vegas sets the odds to be neutral. The goal is to get equal numbers betting on each side and pay out a net of zero. They only appear to favor the sports book because the vig is factored into the odds and that's how they actually make their money. If you took the vig out and listed it separately, the odds would add up to 1. They don't do that because people are less likely to put down money if there's an added explicit fee so it's better for them to hide it inside the bet.

The other thing a lot of people don't realize is that odds aren't straight up probabilities of likely outcomes. They're based on expected betting patterns. People don't always bet using objective factors and there are lots of intangibles that go into setting odds. Florida having the best odds and Louisville having the fifth best doesn't necessarily mean Florida is the most likely to win or Louisville is the fifth most likely; it's thats where they expect the money to go.

I do like your idea. Nate Silver's numbers are based on what he calculates to be actual probabilities. If you could find a set of scenarios where your actual odds are better than the Vegas odds, then it could be worth placing some bets.

I agree the odds are based on where they think he money will go, but that doesn't mean the money is stupid. The odds are still a useful indicator of likely outcomes.